Duty Of Police Is To Enforce Law, Not To Negotiate Its Dilution: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that police officers cannot convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements, directing two women police officers to personally pay Rs.1,00,000 each to a dowry complainant for their dereliction of statutory duty.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri was hearing a writ petition filed by a father seeking a mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, and officers of the All Women Police Station, Alangulam, to take action, in accordance with law, against his daughter's former prospective in-laws on his representation dated 22.06.2026.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that after years of savings, he had arranged his daughter's marriage with the fourth respondent, a Senior Engineer employed with a private company in Bengaluru, with the engagement solemnised on 18.04.2026 with the concurrence of the respective families. It was alleged that on the date of the engagement itself, the prospective in-laws compelled the petitioner to part with Rs.10,00,000 in cash as dowry, and that further demands were made shortly before the wedding scheduled for 08.06.2026, upon non-fulfilment of which the marriage was unilaterally cancelled.

When the petitioner approached the police seeking action, it was alleged that instead of registering a case, the officers facilitated a private settlement, persuaded him to accept only Rs.5,00,000 as partial refund, asked him to wait a month for the balance, and closed the complaint without taking any penal action. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the complaint had been duly enquired into and that the parties had voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement, pursuant to which the complaint came to be closed.

Examining the record, the Court traced the origins of the All Women Police Station system in Tamil Nadu to 1992, noting that it was conceived not merely as another police station but as an integrated centre combining law enforcement with counselling, mediation and gender sensitisation. The Court observed that such institutions were increasingly being perceived as informal forums for negotiated settlements, undermining the mandatory requirements of criminal law.

“An institution established to protect women cannot be permitted to degenerate into an informal adjudicatory mechanism operating outside the statutory framework. Police officers are neither arbitrators nor private mediators when allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences... Police officers cannot assume unto themselves the jurisdiction to convert allegations of cognizable offences into private monetary settlements. The duty of the police is to enforce the law not to negotiate its dilution.”

Holding that the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed cognizable offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warranting registration of a First Information Report, the Court, by its earlier order dated 09.07.2026, directed the Inspector of Police, AWPS Alangulam, to appear and explain why no FIR had been registered, and directed the concerned officers to deposit Rs.1,00,000 each with the petitioner as interim compensation for dereliction of duty.

By the time the matter was next taken up, disciplinary action, including suspension, had already been initiated against the two officers, an FIR had been registered against the prospective in-laws, and the investigation had been forwarded to the District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Tenkasi District. The Court held that the petitioner's primary grievance now stood substantially redressed, while directing that the investigation proceed thoroughly, impartially and independently of any observations made in its order.

The Court also recorded its appreciation of the corrective measures taken by the State, noting the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the Government had initiated steps to strengthen the functioning of All Women Police Stations across Tamil Nadu. Taking into account the officers' unconditional remorse, their ten-day suspension already undergone, and the interim compensation deposited, the Court took a lenient view on further disciplinary action, directing that Rs.1,00,000 each be paid to the petitioner as public law compensation, and clarifying that no further departmental proceedings would be initiated against them solely on the basis of the writ petition.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: M/s. Vanisha for Mr. S. Kishore Kumar. For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. John Sathyan, Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. C. Susikumar, Government Advocate (Crl.). For Respondents 4 to 9: Mr. Narayana Kumar.

Case Details: W.P.Crl.(MD) No.3809 of 2026